Wait a minute… the jews didn’t kill Jesus. The romans did? I say let’s get even with those damm italians. Not only did they killed Jesus but also they are poisoning the world with tomato sauce (which I personally hate). In fact if we “re read” history in keeping in my that the “dagos” murdered our lord, we’ll find a lot of evidence of their many attempts to conquer the world (hello!!! Madonna).
And tried to cover it up with all this “Pope” business. Pretty darn sneaky!
Pretty much as I figured, you paid no more attention to me that to anyone else. Oh well.
However, I there were a couple of things I thought were worth one last comment. I said
and that leads you to this little gem:
We had the Olympics here in SLC earlier this year, and I missed your name on the Conclusion Jumping Team. Were you perhaps listed under an alias?
Oh please. No reasonable person on either side of the discussions about the bible insists that it must be 100% factually accurate to be of value. There are many small (or larger, depending on your point of view) inconsistencies in the various accounts. Only the fanatical insist on absolute biblical inerrancy.
Ugly
Regarding your first paragraph, you must have an abridged version of the bible (and you certainly skipped portions of the Staff Report).
According to the Gospels:
- Jesus entered the city of Jerusalem with crowds hailing him as king. (Clearly a threat to Roman authority.)
- Jesus attacked the money changers in the temple precincts, destroying their booths and overturning their tables. (This is a peaceful protest?) (This is also the point at which the majority (of the inconsistent gospels) indicate that the chief priests began to plot the downfall of Jesus.)
Your second paragraph continues your rather incoherent fussing about assigning “blame” for the death of Jesus. The point of the Staff Report was:
- that who is responsible is irrelevant
- that the action was political
and - that we can point out aspects of the gospels that are inconsistent with our historical knowledge of the period, so here is an alternative exposition of the events that is, as far as possible, consistent with both the Gospels and history.
You have uttered such odd phrases as “letting Jews off the hook” without ever explaining why anyone needs to be held accountable (particularly why any complete nation or people should be held accountable).
You objected to the statement
without ever explaining why it is relevant.
You replied to the statement
with
Yet Jesus asked that his persecutors be forgiven. How does that make anyone antichrist by suggesting forgiveness? You seem to be operating out of a different bible than the rest of us.
You have also (deliberately?) misinterpreted the statements regarding the Pharisees. The Staff Report notes that as a group the Pharisees were not responsible for the trial and execution of Jesus. It does not say that no Pharisee had any part of the proceedings, only that the common assumption that they were the prime movers for the event does not appear to be supported by the evidence.
So, if there is actually going to be a discussion, it would seem that you should really set out why you find the matter of assigning blame so important and why you believe that Christians should not follow the words of Jesus and forgive his executioners whoever they may have been.
(It would also be interesting to know how you view history to know how you see the Report “letting Jews off the hook.” How does putting the Jews back “on the hook” affect anyone’s life, today?)
Let me put forth that no one killed him. If a guy is witnessed by credible individuals walking around and visiting just three days after his reported death, I question whether anyone can be blamed for a death that apparently did not happen.
In a present-day court could anyone be convicted for such a non-crime?
Judge: And where is the body now, Mr. Prosecutor?
Prosecutor:* Well, judge, he’s sitting right over there doing a crossword puzzle.*
Judge: Get out of my courtroom, you idiot, and go back to law school.
The basis for any crime involving death is a writ of habeus corpus. If the body is up and walking around, you have no death. Thus you can have no one who caused the death.
Actually Live.Org I would really like to hear your response to tomndeb’s points. I really don’t understand what you were saying.
In terms of responsiblity (by way of analogy) should we hold Mormons or Southern Baptists responsible for the rape/murder/torture that went on during the crusades and inquisition? (I assume you don’t take responsibility for those.) Christians did the raping/murdering/torturing and Mormons and SBs are Christians. Or maybe a better example would be the Greek Orthodox church during the times of the crusades or inquisition.
PC
I have refrained from posting here, because I think Live.Org is just trolling. He’s not reading other people’s posts (except to pull material from them and twist it around), he’s not responding to other people’s comments. His favorite trick is to twist someone’s words and then ask, “Right or Wrong?”
I was very clear that I did not want any more of his ranting in the other forum, and that I provided a link to where he could rant (er, sorry, debate) to his heart’s content. Nonetheless, he made the predictable cry of “Censorship.”
OK, Live, here you go, I respond in kind:
(1) Do you believe that every word of the Bible is absolutely inerrant? Yes or No?
(1a) When it says that Caesar Augustus ordered “all the world” be taxed, do you think that he was taxing North America, South America, China and Australia too? Yes or No?
(1b) Could a phrase like “all the world” be an oversimplification, poetical, for dramatic effect, rather than a literal statement of geography? Yes or No? Would it “gut” the gospels if there were statements that were poetic imagery rather than literal truth? Yes or No?
(1c) Does a phrase in the Bible like “the Jews” necessarily mean every single individual Jew, then and forever? Or Could such a phrase also be an oversimplification, for dramatic effect?
(2) Do you think Caiaphas was Jewish? Yes or No?
(2a) When you ask Dex whether he thinks any Jew was responsible for the death of Jesus, and when he answers “Caiaphas and his cronies”, and when you ask again, and again, and again… are you trolling? Yes or No?
(2b) Are you able to read and understand a simple English sentence, such as “The empire’s agents included the Roman prefect Pilate who ordered the execution, and the Jewish high priest Caiaphus and his council who initiated the process.” Yes or No?
(3) Do you think that, in the years of say, 10 BC to 50 AD, that Judea was ruled by Romans? Yes or No?
(3a) Do you think that “ruled by the Romans” means that Roman law prevailed in the courts and was enforced by the soldiers? Yes or No?
(3b) Do you think that, in the years from around 10 BC to 50 AD, that the Roman Emperor was Jewish? Yes or No?
(3c) Do you think that the Jewish bankers ruled Rome during that period? Yes or No?
(3d) Do you think that the Jewish bankers rule the United States today as part of a secret conspiracy? Yes or No?
(4) Around the year 70 AD, the Roman soldiers destroyed Jerusalem. This was in reaction to the Jewish rebellion that started around 67 AD. Why do you think the Jews rebelled? (Select one answer):
(a) To destroy the Roman Empire and kill all the non-Jews
(b) To gain independence from Roman rule
© To kill all the Christians the way they killed Jesus
(4a) Do you think that the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman soldiers was a fair and just treatment of the Jews because they killed Jesus? Yes or No?
Live: << I never, ever claimed that Rome was not responsible for the death of Jesus, if you want to get technical about it >>
Technically, no, you never said that. But I certainly read your comments as implying that you felt the sole responsibility rests with the Jews.
Live: << But the conclusion of the report seems to be that all Jews of that day were either morally right or removed from involvement in the death of Jesus. >>
CAIAPHAS WAS JEWISH. CAIAPHAS AND HIS CRONIES BEAR RESPONSIBILITY. CAIAPHAS WAS JEWISH. CAIAPHAS AND HIS CRONIES BEAR RESPONSIBILITY. CAIAPHAS WAS JEWISH. CAIAPHAS AND HIS CRONIES BEAR RESPONSIBILITY. CAIAPHAS WAS JEWISH. CAIAPHAS AND HIS CRONIES BEAR RESPONSIBILITY.
HOW MANY FREAKING TIMES DO I NEED TO SAY IT BEFORE IT SINKS IN? (Yes, I am using upper case and yes, I realize that means I am “yelling.”) If you had READ the Staff Report, you would have seen the conclusion: "The empire’s agents included the Roman prefect Pilate who ordered the execution, and the Jewish high priest Caiaphus and his council who initiated the process. "
Live: << Where is it written that Jesus called for people to riot, or for political change? He talked about a spiritual Kingdom of Heaven, the Good News. >>
You are reading the text from the point of view of centuries later. To the people of the time (as the Staff Report makes clear), he was proclaimed “king” – YOU may think of this as a spiritual kingdom, but he was no proclaimed “king of a spiritual kingdom”, he was proclaimed “king” period. And that was viewed as a threat, or call for political change – Caesar was Emperor, Herod had been king. Jesus also said that the Temple would be overthrown and he chased the moneylenders out of Temple grounds. That’s a clear threat and call for political change.
All this is in the Staff Report. I wish you’d get over your notion that I’m somehow trashing the gospels. I tried to explain how Roman law and politics worked, and to show how the gospel accounts are reasonably consistent with how Roman law and politics worked…
And, I repeat, for the third or fourth time, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOUR POINT IS, except to rant and rave and twist and troll.
C K Dexter Haven: No more nonsense = calling me a troll, everyone else gets a reply as soon as I get to it. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll or whatever other accusation you can think up, it’s an old trick that does nothing to enhance your argument.
RJKUgly: are you prepared to say that Jesus deserved to die, if the story is true at all? It’s a yes or no question, nothing to do with an Olympics.
The rest is opinion, if you don’t believe the Bible that’s your choice. I stated my beliefs, no one has proof either way. The Bible is evidence of history and at this point, for me, there is more evidence that it is true than evidence it is untrue.
Nice try, but here the council of Pharisees (by all indications, the same at the trial) started plotting well before the events you suggest, and started questioning Jesus before that…
Matthew 12:14 Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.
Matthew 21:9 And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.
Matthew 21:12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
Let’s try to proceed without using terms like “incoherent fussing” – I am apparently coherent enough for you to keep replying so stop already with attempts to distract from the real issues. It is relevant to know who killed Jesus because it is portrayed in the Gospels, and the question is there? How about that, to start. As a Christian I believe that the prophets spoke of who rejected Jesus – are the prophets irrelevant? Some rejected Jewish Messiah, when you have no Jews involved in his rejection! I can state some other specific prophetic connections but I’ll hold off just now.
Again, if it is so irrelevant, why the report at all? Can’t have it both ways, when convenient.
And of course it was political, based on threat to religious authority. Again, does religion play no role in Israeli politics today? Didn’t it then? Come now…
And how much historical evidence suggests the likelihood of a resurrection? If you are a Christian, what exactly do you base your faith on? Why accept some of the more miraculous parts of the Gospels but not others? Anyway, I have already shown that the Gospels are more consistent with what Josephus – who may have been a Pharisee – wrote about “principal men among us” who indicted Jesus, and the probable need for Pilate to whitewash his more infamous activities through use of such a crowd, in order to protect his own position which was eventually vacated due to public outcry. As for any guilt of the High Priest, that’s raw opinion. Your side may believe he was morally right, I say he was wrong.
You still reflect ideas within the report that if anyone wants to get at the truth of who killed Jesus, they must have some racist or darker reason for doing so. That’s up to Jesus and God, not me, to forgive the killers. But that doesn’t stop me from wanting to know who they really were. Apples and oranges.
The report says what it says, that “The conclusion of most scholars is that the Pharisees had nothing to do with Jesus’ arrest and execution. Now that we’ve excluded the most commonly held rationales for Jesus’ arrest, what’s left?” You show me where the report or any of you have claimed that any Pharisees had anything to do with Jesus’ arrest and execution and I will accept that, but I also expect to see a retraction or modification of the second sentence given here.
Hey, you guys wrote the report on who killed Jesus, I merely responded to it. Again, for the xth time, why the report at all? Didn’t you blame Rome, just a little? As for forgiveness, already responded, apples and oranges.
The real question is, why has Staff been so careful to exclude Jews completely or from any moral wrong in the death of Jesus when the Gospels indicate otherwise? Was it an innocent coincidence resulting from the choosing of evidences that seemed most right to Staff? Or, a deliberate attempt to discredit Christianity? You tell me. Again, did any Jews act immorally in the death of Jesus? Has anyone given a straight answer to that yet? Please direct me to it, if so.
I decided to reply as a courtesy, let’s try to stay away from name-calling if you don’t mind.
No, quit dodging questions and I won’t have to nail you down on them. Give an example of a question I did not answer and I will try to answer it for you.
Yes, and I apologized for the “censorship” remark, I think everyone got that.
No, I believe in the main concepts depicted.
No.
Yes, in most cases the “world” would be referring to the Roman Empire, or in Noah’s case, possibly a “world” flood pertaining to the Indo-European region. Today, the “world” is getting smaller to include more areas, and you’ll find that reflected in prophecies regarding its fate. No.
No. Yes.
Yes, in appearance anyway.
No, I asked if he was morally wrong and you kept saying that he was morally responsible, then you finally admitted that you thought he was morally right.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes, although there is evidence that some death sentences could be carried out under Jewish Law. But the moral conviction of the High Priest, Pharisees, and “multitudes” is what we are after, and if all agreed on the death of Jesus, was any Jew morally wrong in doing so? If not, did Jesus deserve to die?
Do you mean Tiberius? There is some evidence he may have descended from the Judah-Zarah line, which fits in nicely with Biblical patterns of birthright conflicts – Judah-Zarah-Tiberius reclaiming over Judah-Pharez-Jesus, etc. But as a religion, no, I have not seen any evidence to assume that Tiberius was a practicing Jew.
No.
No, the system of working for gold and receiving paper as payment is a rather open conspiracy, but power, rather than religion or race, is at work there.
(b)
No.
Flipping – I gave no indication that I thought Rome was not guilty, especially when I say that I believe the Gospels which detail clearly the actions of Pilate and Roman soldiers who whipped, mocked, and crucified Jesus. I’m saying that all Jews involved were at least as guilty and morally wrong as all Romans involved.
Yeah, I got that you say he bears responsibility – moral responsibility – and you already said that he was morally right. Which Jews, then, were morally wrong, if any?
See my answer to tomndebb on this, the threat of “king” did not come until after Pharisees sought to destroy him on violations of religious law.
I am replying to your responses to my initial analysis on the report, if you don’t want a reply, don’t respond. I’m not going to keep posting to you personally if you don’t reply back. As I’ve said before, it’s that simple.
No, I am discussing Jews involved with Jesus’ death, not all Jews in history, before or after, although that is the impression you might receive from those I am debating this with.
I confess that I am totally confused about what point you are trying to make. We’ve gone over and around various bits and pieces, but, Live, can you please summarize, in one sentence, WHAT IS YOUR INITIAL OBJECTION TO THE STAFF REPORT? You object to it, strenuously, but I really don’t understand why… except that you think it “lets the Jews off the hook” (which I find an offensive way of putting it.)
On Caiaphas, Live says: << Yeah, I got that you say he bears responsibility – moral responsibility – and you already said that he was morally right. >>
Oh, dear God, if onoly you DID “get” it. But I think I finally see what your point is here. You have an oversimplified view of morality – an action is either right or wrong. While I agree that is sometimes the case, I think morality tends to be much more complicated than that.
I have said (about four hundred times) that Caiaphas was stuck in the middle. He had to make a choice between the death of one person he perceived as a rabble-rouser, or the potential death of thousands when the Roman soldiers put down the rabble he had roused. From a modern viewpoint, I guess, you would say that both choices are immoral. From a 30 AD viewpoint, Caiaphas would have said that executing one person was a far, far better choice (morally) than failing to do his job of keeping the peace. Remember that executions were not uncommon – there were three in Jerusalem that day. Remember the Roman arenas and later persecution of Christians. Roman justice was harsh, very harsh, with no consideration of “rights of the individual” or “rights of the accused” at all (except sometimes in the case of wealthy citizens in Rome who could buy their rights.)
And I agree with Caiaphas’s decision. If I were in Caiaphas’s job, I would have done the same. Would you have done differently? (Well, OK, because you are now a Christian, you might have said that saving God was more important than saving thousands of people. But imagine that you were NOT a Christian, how would you choose between executing one person or inviting the destruction of thousands?)
The same situation holds today. When the police come upon a scene, their first obligation is to defuse it. Sometimes that means shooting the man at LA Airport who has just opened fire on pasengers. Tsk, tsk, he didn’t get a fair trial. The airport security should have told him he was under arrest, read him his rights, etc. They didn’t do that for the very real reason that he would have shot and killed other innocent people. Did the airport security people act “immorally” in shooting first, rather than trying to arrest him peacable? I don’t think so. The analogy is clear – they had to do something (kill a suspect) that would be viewed as “immoral” in an absolute sense, but that was “moral” in a situational sense (to avoid further loss of life.)
Caiaphas’s position was the same. He had to make a choice, and he made the choice that seemed to him the best politically and morally.
So I repeat, as I have repeated many times: Caiaphas and his council were responsible.
Now, you’re going to come back with your repeated question:
<<Again, did any Jews act immorally in the death of Jesus? Has anyone given a straight answer to that yet? Please direct me to it, if so. >>
I HAVE GIVEN A STRAIGHT ANSWER ABOUT A HUNDRED FREAKING TIMES:
Concluding sentence of the Staff Report:
On trolling
When you repeatedly ask a question, and I answer, and you ask the same question, and I answer, and you ask the same question, and I answer and you ask the same question and I answer… I am justified in calling you a troll.
The real question?
Live: << The real question is, why has Staff been so careful to exclude Jews completely or from any moral wrong in the death of Jesus when the Gospels indicate otherwise? >>
First, I deny entirely that we have “been so careful to exclude Jews completely or from any moral wrong.”
Concluding sentence of the Staff Report:
Live: << Was it an innocent coincidence resulting from the choosing of evidences that seemed most right to Staff? Or, a deliberate attempt to discredit Christianity?>>
Pfui. The Staff Report is not original research. It represents the vast majority opinion of scholars – archaeologists, theologians, biblical scholars, historians, etc. Most the references cited are Christians, some very devout Christians and noted Christian theologists. A couple are Jewish, who have spent their distinguished careers studying the period.
Believe me, the Staff Report made every effort to be respectful of the gospels and of basic Christian beliefs. If I had wanted to trash the gospels, it would have been a very different report. I was very careful to use words like “emphasized one point over another” … I didn’t say “lied” or “distorted” or “spouted hatred that would have made Jesus cringe.” I was very careful to use words like “implausible” rather than “ridiculous.”
The Staff Report did its best to reconcile the gospel accounts with what is known about Roman law and Jewish law.
On the Multitude
For the moment, let us assume the scene took place as described literally in the gospels, although scholars of Roman Law find it highly unlikely. You have accepted that the gospels may use poetic imagery for dramatic effect.
I suggest the evidence of your own eyes. Go to Jerusalem. There is a model of Herod’s palace, where presumably the scene with Pilate took place. Look at the courtyard. Check the measurements. How many people do you think would fit in there? Fifty? A hundred? Two hundred would be extremely crowded.
Now, would that entire crowd have voted against Jesus? Wouldn’t some of the crowd have been Jesus’s supporters? Answer carefully – if you say no, then you have to answer how Jesus’s followers knew what happened if none of them were there. It would then be hearsay, gossip, third-party information. So, some of the crowd were probably Jesus’s followers.
Who would have been admitted to the courtyard in general? Trouble-makers? Ordinary people? Anyone off the street? Unlikely. More probably, people coming to curry favor or to petition.
I said that the scene is entirely unlike the Pilate we know from other sources. You said that he might have been putting on an act, the way that Saddam Hussein pets the heads of little children. OK, if so, who would have been the audience? People who hated him? No, such acts are put on in front of a compliant press who will report it favorably. So the crowd was likely loaded with sycophants and others who would cheer the way Pilate direct them.
So, when the gospels describe “the Jews” or “the multitude”, they mean perhaps 100 people, perhaps a few more. They do not mean the entire Jewish nation, they do not mean the entire population of Jerusalem, they do not even mean the neighborhood of the palace.
Now, I agree with most scholars, that whole scene was dramatic exaggeration, for emphasis, poetically reflecting that the majority of Jews rejected Jesus as not being their king. But even if we grant that it happened at all, it was nowhere near “the Jews” who condemned. Blaming an entire race for the action of a handful of individuals is stereotyping and… well… immoral.
So, Live.org, what do Jews look like?
Actually, I’m still waiting on an answer from Live.org regarding his agenda.
By no indications but your assumption. The versions that relate a Pharisee involvement (as a group) do not tie that group to the trial and execution. In order to claim “It was the Pharisees” one has to string together odd snips of verses from several Gospels and make the huge assumption that each Gospel author was filling in gaps for each other author. While there are specific events that are told from three or four perpectives where we can use the different views to get a better idea of what happened at that event, I reject the notion that one can legitimately string a statement from Matthew regarding the first year of Jesus’s ministry with a separate statement from John regarding the last week of Jesus’s ministry and proclaim “See! These are the same.”
As Dex has noted: CAIAPHAS WAS JEWISH. CAIAPHAS AND HIS CRONIES BEAR RESPONSIBILITY. To post what you did after Dex had repeatedly made his point is very bad form. This is why I have earlier accused you of picking lines out of other texts to twist to some strange purpose of your own.
This from the poster who started out with “gutting the gospels” and has continued through “censorship” along with the comment about responsibility that I just quoted? Your fussing has been less than clear–you have picked out statements, reworded them to mean other than what was posted, then demanded that we agree with your new version with a “yes” or “no.” “Have you stopped beating your wife?” type questions count as fussing to me.
I continue to engage because it is not clear to me that you are trolling and I would like to resolve the issue. I am hoping that you present something with which we can clearly agree or disagree. This most recent post does come closer than your earlier efforts. Specifically:
So it appears that you fear that if we don’t blame “the Jews” we are denying some aspect of prohecy? I suppose that I can see that perspective. On the other hand, throughout my 40+ years of religious education, I have always been taught that the involvement of Caiaphas as High Priest was quite sufficient to satisfy “the stone which the builders rejected” and similar prophecies without expanding that to mean that the Jewish nation had to be implicated. (To say nothing of the fact that a number of those prophecies seem to be ad hoc reinterpretations (usually by Matthew) to make a point. That does not make Matthew’s use of them lies; it makes them aspects of preaching, making a point, without requiring that they be part of the original intent of the original author.)
So, to me, the religious aspect of “who killed Jesus” is clearly irrelevant because it should be clear that, as Jesus accepted death for all sinners, all sinners are responsible for his death.
The purpose of the Staff Report was to respond to the question regarding who was factually responsible. The response was that Caiaphas and Pilate were personally responsible and that the context of that action was the climate of Roman rule. The person who asked the question specifically referred to the problems inherent in the ‘traditional “blame the Jews” reading’ as contrasted with the notion of a “whitewash” of the Romans. The Staff Report addressed the context of the interaction between the (Roman appointed) Jewish authorities, the overall milieu of the Roman Empire, and the specific personalities of Caiaphas and Pilate. Effectively, it pointed out how the persons involved with the decisions acted (thus assuming the moral responsibility) in the context of how actual events would have transpired to lead them to those decisions.
If you need to see the Jews responsible, collectively, for the actions of their unelected authorities to satisfy your views of prophecy, then I suppose that we are now at the stage to “agree to disagree.”
Monty: You got an answer, it’s there, go find it.
carnivorousplant: They all have “hook” noses thus my claim of letting them off the “hook” – see below. Actually, last reply to you unless you want to discuss the real issues.
C K Dexter Haven:
Here it is again for clarity: why has Staff been so careful to exclude Jews completely or from any moral wrong in the death of Jesus when the Gospels – and outside sources like Josephus – indicate otherwise? You have given your answers, no need to reply, but there it is if you have forgotten.
Following is what Caiaphas and Co. did, according to what is written – you really would have done the same thing to Jesus? Or are the Gospels false on this point too?
Matthew 26:65-68 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death. Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?
Where is it written that Jesus had a gun and opened fire on innocent people? Apples 'n oranges (fruit cocktail, anyone?).
I get it, they acted responsibly and right in your mind.
Nope, you are saying that the High Priest and council acted with moral responsibility and that they were right, you would even do the same thing. I want to know if you think any Jew was morally wrong in the death of Jesus. I’m not trolling when you don’t give a straight answer and think up a million different ways to not answer the question. However, I am not asking it again and I will now draw my own conclusions based on what you have said thus far.
The rest has been covered.
tomndebb:
Ok, what other groups besides Pharisees held a council to destroy Jesus that may have been interested in appearing at the trial? You know, gathering evidence, arrest, trial, handing over for execution…see the flow?
Other issues following addressed, I think.
Thanks.
Try this one on for size. According to Jesus and prophetic similarities:
Scribes and Pharisees = Moses
High Priest Caiaphas = Aaron
Pilate’s mob = Israel under Pharaoh
Jesus = Power of God that turns water into blood and allows it to be walked on, and many other things.
What would Pharaoh do if all pertinent Israelites agreed to hand the Power of God over to him for destruction? He may have been slightly puzzled, like Pilate, but more than willing to take it. Would Israel have ever seen the Promised Land? Who would have made the initial decision to do this? Aaron, the High Priest? Or Moses? If scribes and Pharisees sat in Moses’ seat, who made the initial decision that lead to handing Jesus over to Pilate?
Are other prophetic connections like this one irrelevant? Could altering them affect the faith of Christians looking for such connections? If you are a Christian, do you want to be a party to that? And as far as facts, no one has any, only evidences, and all evidence indicates that Pharisees held a council to destroy Jesus on religious grounds, and that Caiaphas and the council arrested and delivered Jesus over for destruction in Pilate’s hands for more political crimes. This is the position of the Gospels, not just my own, and unless you agree that the Bible is generally fact, just not able to be proved yet, I’m not really sure what drives your faith as I indicated before.
I’m crushed.
;j
Yeah; I also, carivorousplant.
Live: Nah, you didn’t. Tell me you didn’t really type "They all have hook noses!
Back to the agenda question: What denomination’s line are you touting? That way we’ll all know what you mean by the answers you’ve given here and in the locked thread.
Monty: I was responding to the innuendo and grasping at straws to take attention away from the discussion. I’m touting the Bible, I don’t represent any denomination of Christianity or go to any church except as a guest when invited.